Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew. If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew. If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

There is a difference between knowing there is DUI laws that state a person with BAC over .08 would be considered intoxicated and knowing there is a zero tolerence for under 21 that is .000. I think the uncle's joke was based on DUI laws.

Well maybe I'm a terrible person but I've never mentioned to anyone when I deglaze a pan with some wine while making a sauce. It never even occurred to me to mention it, it seems like such a common thing and most of the alcohol, if not all, will cook off while the sauce is simmering. We did mention that there was rum in the brown sugar glaze that we made for the ham for Christmas, but it just kind of came up in conversation, we didn't make a point to mention it. And we have plenty of children at these gatherings, including our own.

Do most people really see this as the same thing as actually serving a child a drink of alochol? To me it is just a cooking ingredient and the alcohol traces are minute and inconsequential. Heck, there is also rum in most chocoloate fondues that children enjoy. It was my understanding that the alcohol is mostly burned off when it is lit on fire.

Well maybe I'm a terrible person but I've never mentioned to anyone when I deglaze a pan with some wine while making a sauce. It never even occurred to me to mention it, it seems like such a common thing and most of the alcohol, if not all, will cook off while the sauce is simmering. We did mention that there was rum in the brown sugar glaze that we made for the ham for Christmas, but it just kind of came up in conversation, we didn't make a point to mention it. And we have plenty of children at these gatherings, including our own.

Do most people really see this as the same thing as actually serving a child a drink of alochol? To me it is just a cooking ingredient and the alcohol traces are minute and inconsequential. Heck, there is also rum in most chocoloate fondues that children enjoy. It was my understanding that the alcohol is mostly burned off when it is lit on fire.

The thing is, even if the alcohol does burn off (it doesn't completely), the sulfites in the wine still remain, which would be a problem for people who are allergic to sulfites. So, there are also legitimate health concerns besides being however slightly impaired by the alcohol.

Also, I'm a bit of a lightweight - I become an eyes - glazed - over mouthbreather after a glass and a half of wine, so I would appreciate knowing if my food had been cooked in an alcoholic beverage. Yes, the majority burns off, but some remains, and I'd like to remain pleasant company for my hosts and fellow guests.

Not telling people if you cook with wine is not being a terrible person, but it's certainly not a thoughtful act.

Logged

"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends" - Harry Potter

Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew. If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

There is a difference between knowing there is DUI laws that state a person with BAC over .08 would be considered intoxicated and knowing there is a zero tolerence for under 21 that is .000. I think the uncle's joke was based on DUI laws.

If they knew enough to mention that he should not be pulled over for a breathalyzer - they knew this could be a problem, even if they didn't think it would be a problem, it was not their choice to make for the boy. He should have been warned - would you feel differently if this was a Muslim who was fed alcohol because it was "just a little bit and I don't think it would matter" or someone who is LDS?

I think if someone is allergic to sulfates, it is their responsibility to tell me. That is certainly not the only allergy out there, so in order for me to avoid allergens I need to know what they are ahead of time. What if I avoid wine but instead someone is allergic to milk? I don't think it's pratical to hand a list of ingredients to all potential guests, the guest with the allergy needs to speak up and I personally will bend over backwards to accomodate them.

Also the amount of wine used to deglaze a pan is far less than a glass and a half and is distributed among all the guests AND most of the alcohol is burned off. We are really talking about a very small amount of alcohol remaining, if any, per guest.

Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew. If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

There is a difference between knowing there is DUI laws that state a person with BAC over .08 would be considered intoxicated and knowing there is a zero tolerence for under 21 that is .000. I think the uncle's joke was based on DUI laws.

If they knew enough to mention that he should not be pulled over for a breathalyzer - they knew this could be a problem, even if they didn't think it would be a problem, it was not their choice to make for the boy. He should have been warned - would you feel differently if this was a Muslim who was fed alcohol because it was "just a little bit and I don't think it would matter" or someone who is LDS?

You aren't asking me specifically, but of course it matters. I would assume that the comments about small amounts were related to alcohol content as pertains to actually impairing driving, which nothing in my cooking would ever do, since we are talking about inconsequential amounts remaining. However, if someone is morally opposed to alcohol I would certainly NEVER serve it to them in any amount. It is not even remotely the same thing in my mind.

Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew. If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

There is a difference between knowing there is DUI laws that state a person with BAC over .08 would be considered intoxicated and knowing there is a zero tolerence for under 21 that is .000. I think the uncle's joke was based on DUI laws.

If they knew enough to mention that he should not be pulled over for a breathalyzer - they knew this could be a problem, even if they didn't think it would be a problem, it was not their choice to make for the boy. He should have been warned - would you feel differently if this was a Muslim who was fed alcohol because it was "just a little bit and I don't think it would matter" or someone who is LDS?

You aren't asking me specifically, but of course it matters. I would assume that the comments about small amounts were related to alcohol content as pertains to actually impairing driving, which nothing in my cooking would ever do, since we are talking about inconsequential amounts remaining. However, if someone is morally opposed to alcohol I would certainly NEVER serve it to them in any amount. It is not even remotely the same thing in my mind.

The amount they can consume is the same -zero. To me it illustrates that there is one set of rules that gets more respect than others. If you don't serve something to some for a choice they have made - and religion is a choice - then you don't serve it to them for a legal obligation - which is not.

Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew. If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

There is a difference between knowing there is DUI laws that state a person with BAC over .08 would be considered intoxicated and knowing there is a zero tolerence for under 21 that is .000. I think the uncle's joke was based on DUI laws.

If they knew enough to mention that he should not be pulled over for a breathalyzer - they knew this could be a problem, even if they didn't think it would be a problem, it was not their choice to make for the boy. He should have been warned - would you feel differently if this was a Muslim who was fed alcohol because it was "just a little bit and I don't think it would matter" or someone who is LDS?

He made a joke. I don't think the uncle really believed the teen had consumed enough whiskey sauce on the bread pudding or port wine sauce on the tenderloin to cause him have any increased BAC. It would be like me remarking to my sister that if she ate another piece of fudge she'd go into a chocolate coma.

And to your other question, I stated twice in previous posts that I do not serve foods cooked with alcohol to people who alert me to dietary restrictions or those I know who abstain for religious reasons or any one recovering from an addiction.

Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew. If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

There is a difference between knowing there is DUI laws that state a person with BAC over .08 would be considered intoxicated and knowing there is a zero tolerence for under 21 that is .000. I think the uncle's joke was based on DUI laws.

If they knew enough to mention that he should not be pulled over for a breathalyzer - they knew this could be a problem, even if they didn't think it would be a problem, it was not their choice to make for the boy. He should have been warned - would you feel differently if this was a Muslim who was fed alcohol because it was "just a little bit and I don't think it would matter" or someone who is LDS?

You aren't asking me specifically, but of course it matters. I would assume that the comments about small amounts were related to alcohol content as pertains to actually impairing driving, which nothing in my cooking would ever do, since we are talking about inconsequential amounts remaining. However, if someone is morally opposed to alcohol I would certainly NEVER serve it to them in any amount. It is not even remotely the same thing in my mind.

The amount they can consume is the same -zero. To me it illustrates that there is one set of rules that gets more respect than others.

I am not aware of any law against a teenager consuming minute amounts of alcohol that was used in cooking. I've never heard of that, so it certainly isn't about me disrespecting a set of rules.

Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew. If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

There is a difference between knowing there is DUI laws that state a person with BAC over .08 would be considered intoxicated and knowing there is a zero tolerence for under 21 that is .000. I think the uncle's joke was based on DUI laws.

If they knew enough to mention that he should not be pulled over for a breathalyzer - they knew this could be a problem, even if they didn't think it would be a problem, it was not their choice to make for the boy. He should have been warned - would you feel differently if this was a Muslim who was fed alcohol because it was "just a little bit and I don't think it would matter" or someone who is LDS?

You aren't asking me specifically, but of course it matters. I would assume that the comments about small amounts were related to alcohol content as pertains to actually impairing driving, which nothing in my cooking would ever do, since we are talking about inconsequential amounts remaining. However, if someone is morally opposed to alcohol I would certainly NEVER serve it to them in any amount. It is not even remotely the same thing in my mind.

The amount they can consume is the same -zero. To me it illustrates that there is one set of rules that gets more respect than others. If you don't serve something to some for a choice they have made - and religion is a choice - then you don't serve it to them for a legal obligation - which is not.

I live in Texas. Texas alcohol & tobacco laws specifically address alcoholic beverage sold to or consumed by minors. It does not prohibit consumption of alcohol when presented in food. Therefore, no law would be broken if I served a rum ball to my 16 yr old cousin.

Eta: moderators if I'm getting to much into laws let me know and I will drop from the conversation.

I would never dream of mentioning that I used 1tbsp of sherry in the marinade for the stirfry or a dollop of wine in the bolognese. Not out of spite, but it honestly wouldn't even cross my mind to do so. If somebody cannot have any alcohol, It is their responsibility to let me know - just like with any other dietary restriction. And in that case I will of course respect it.

Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew. If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

There is a difference between knowing there is DUI laws that state a person with BAC over .08 would be considered intoxicated and knowing there is a zero tolerence for under 21 that is .000. I think the uncle's joke was based on DUI laws.

If they knew enough to mention that he should not be pulled over for a breathalyzer - they knew this could be a problem, even if they didn't think it would be a problem, it was not their choice to make for the boy. He should have been warned - would you feel differently if this was a Muslim who was fed alcohol because it was "just a little bit and I don't think it would matter" or someone who is LDS?

You aren't asking me specifically, but of course it matters. I would assume that the comments about small amounts were related to alcohol content as pertains to actually impairing driving, which nothing in my cooking would ever do, since we are talking about inconsequential amounts remaining. However, if someone is morally opposed to alcohol I would certainly NEVER serve it to them in any amount. It is not even remotely the same thing in my mind.

The amount they can consume is the same -zero. To me it illustrates that there is one set of rules that gets more respect than others. If you don't serve something to some for a choice they have made - and religion is a choice - then you don't serve it to them for a legal obligation - which is not.

If I didn't know someone was Muslim and/or that they had a religious objection to alcohol I would feel zero guilt serving them some. I wouldn't feel badly serving a silent vegetarian animal products either. Just like the teen driver, the onus is on the restricted person to communicate their restrictions. If the Muslim keeps quiet, then too bad for them if they accidentally eat something cooked with alcohol, if the vegetarian doesn't tell me, I don't know to use vegetable broth, and if the teen doesn't speak up, I'm not withholding the cooking wine. I can only stop myself if I know I have to.

As for someone knowing there was an issue to make the joke to begin with - its possible there was, you know, conversation throughout and after the meal. Its absolutely possible no one knew when the food was being served there would be any issue, then then throughout the course of the evening the teen mentioned he just got a license and through that conversation it came about there are alcohol restrictions, and voila - perfect opening for a joke about alcohol in the food.

I'm also in Australia, and yes, there are several jurisdictions here that stipulate that P Platers must not have ANY trace of alcohol in their blood. In fact, I recently watched one of those reality police shows where a teenager was booked because he had traces of alcohol in his blood. It turned out that his girlfriend's mother had given him a few rum balls, which (obviously) contained traces of rum! Luckily, he was let off with a warning.

To me, a lot depends on what type of food it it. For example, a dessert traditionally made with alcohol, such as trifle, tiramasu, or rum balls, I'd expect the guest to have a pretty good idea that alcohol might be an ingredient.

For things such as sauces and marinade, these can just as often be made without alcohol as without. So I think the onus is on the host to inform guests if there's any alcohol used in things like that. Especially if they know (or ought to know) that that particular guest cannot consume alcohol, for whatever reason.